[mithrilG60]

You're combining two different points, I probably didn't separate them out enough. The slashing and whatnot was a reference to Lucic taunting Burrows in that scrum. The scrum resulted from Burrows slashing at Thomas' glove hand as the play died which was in turn a response to all the other slashing. It had nothing to do with the Rome-Horton hit as it was in the 3rd and well after that fact. My only issue with Lucic's finger pointing at Burrows is the hypocrisy of Julien calling out the Canucks for LaPierre's taunting in Game 2 only to have not one but two Bruins do exactly what Julien said he'd never allow his players to ever do because it denigrates the game.

Intent to injure? We obviously have very different definitions of that. Eager trying to run Sedin through the boards from behind in retaliation for Marlowe picking a fight with Bieska only to have his arse handed to him... that's intent to injure. Unlike that hit, or the Paille one you brought up, Rome's hit would have been completely legal if he'd completed it 2 seconds before and if Horton had been ready for it (ie. had his head up instead of watching his pass) then it wouldn't have caught him in the head or resulted in him hitting his head off the ice.

There's no disputing that Rome is guilty of a late hit and therefore interference. Given the severity of the result of the hit there's no questioning that it called for a match penalty and I'm sure it will result in a suspension. All well deserved I say. Intent to injure? Please. IF that was the case his elbow would have come up and/or he would have actually left his feet into the hit (and not after the impact in reaction to the force of the hit as the replay clearly shows is the case). Rome is hardly known for being a Matt Cooke type of player, why would he pick Game 3 of the Finals when the Canucks were well ahead in the series to start? No, there was no intent to injure... just a really stupid decision that unfortunately resulted in a player getting injured.